Short Summary
This order concerns a side proceeding in which the plaintiffs (DISH Technologies and Sling TV) sought information from a third party, Cloudflare Inc., under Rule 191 Alt. 2 of the Rules of Procedure in connection with the main infringement proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The rapporteur addressed the plaintiffs' request that he determine that the sought information is not decisive for the decision, combined with a conditional withdrawal of the information request. The court held that such a request for a preliminary determination is inadmissible, but that the conditional withdrawal is to be interpreted as making the information request itself conditional on the information being decisive, and that such an internal procedural condition is permissible even when the information is sought from a non-party.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the rapporteur (Böttcher) of the Local Division Mannheim in case UPC_CFI_471/2023, concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs are DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., both based in Englewood, Colorado, USA. The defendants are six entities of the AYLO group (AYLO Premium Ltd, AYLO Billing Limited, AYLO Freesites Ltd, AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC). Cloudflare Inc., a Delaware corporation, is a third party to the main proceedings.
In the main infringement proceedings, the plaintiffs had initiated a side proceeding (App_50861/2024) seeking the transmission of information from the third party, Cloudflare Inc., under Rule 191 Alt. 2 of the Rules of Procedure. Both the defendants and Cloudflare opposed the requested information transmission, with Cloudflare reserving further arguments pending access to the main case file. To defend itself against the information request, Cloudflare had previously filed an application under Rules 262.1(b) and 262.3 RoP for access to the main case file (App_10340/2025 and App_10341/2025), including access to confidential information concerning the allegedly infringing embodiments of the defendants, subject to confidentiality obligations imposed on its legal representatives and two named natural persons.
By submission dated 12 March 2025 (App_12073/2025), the plaintiffs requested that the rapporteur determine that the information sought from Cloudflare is not decisive for the decision in the main proceedings, and combined this request with a conditional withdrawal of their Rule 191 Alt. 2 information request, the condition being that the court find the information lacks decisiveness.
& Analysis
The rapporteur addressed three key legal questions. First, he held that an applicant's request under Rule 191 Alt. 2 RoP asking the rapporteur to determine that the sought information is not decisive for the decision is inadmissible as a matter of procedure. Second, the rapporteur interpreted the plaintiffs' combined request — a request for a preliminary determination coupled with a conditional withdrawal — as effectively making the Rule 191 Alt. 2 information request itself conditional upon the information being decisive for the outcome. Third, the rapporteur held that such an internal procedural condition is permissible, even where the information transmission under Rule 191 Alt. 2 RoP is sought from a third party not involved in the main proceedings.
Final Order & Ruling
The rapporteur issued an order addressing the procedural framework for conditional Rule 191 Alt. 2 RoP information requests directed at non-parties. The order establishes that while a preliminary determination of non-decisiveness is inadmissible, applicants may validly condition their information requests on the relevance of the sought information, and such conditions are to be treated as permissible internal procedural conditions. The full text of the order appears to be cut off in the provided source, but the headnotes (Leitsätze) clearly set out the three principles governing the admissibility and interpretation of conditional information requests under Rule 191 Alt. 2 RoP.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C. vs Cloudflare. Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.